In a newly released book by Herbie Brennan, Martian
Genesis (a sadly predictable New Age title given the artifacts being discovered on
Mars), the author writes on page 41 in a chapter about giants:

"Folklore describes giants as mortals who inhabited
the world in early times. Corineus, the legendary hero of Cornwall, in England, is
supposed to have slain the giant Gogmagog by hurling him from a cliff. But Gogmagog was
not believed to have been the only giant inhabiting Cornwall in that distant age -- just
the greatest of them. Another version of the same story has Brutus, the legendary founder
of Britain, capturing two Cornish giants, Gog and Magog."

Unfortunately Mr. Brennan has no references in his book.
Bill Cooper's wonderful work, After the
Flood, provides a probable reference:

". . . See Geoffrey of Monmouth. pp. 72-3. Geoffrey's
Gogmagog appears to be a corruption of the name Gawr Madoc, the giant or great warrior
Madog. Of these 'giants', we read, ...though their stature is exaggerated, yet it will be
remembered that the stature of the ancient Britons was thought gigantic by Romans.' Pope.
p. 164."

As noted earlier on this page, Magog is linked to the
Scythians. Bill Cooper notes, in Chapter 8:

"Keating writes:

'We will set down here the branching off of the races of
Magog, according to the Book of Invasions (of Ireland), which was called the Gin of Drom
Snechta...'

. . . The important thing for us to notice in this table
of descent, though, is the unequivocal statement that the decidedly pagan Irish traced
their origins back to the biblical patriarch, Magog, the son of Japheth. This is in direct
contrast to the claims of the Britons and other European nations, whose genealogies were
traced back to Javan, another son of Japheth. Now, Magog. . . was considered, with
Ashchenaz, the father of the Scythian peoples, and the early Irish chroniclers were most
emphatic in their insistence that the Irish were of Scythian stock. And there is good
etymological evidence for this. The Irish were long referred to as Scots even before some
of them migrated to the country that today bears their name, and as Brewer tells us:

'Scot (is) the same as Scythian in etymology; the root of
both is Sct. The Greeks had no c, and would change t into th making
the root skth, and by adding a phonetic vowel we get Skuthai (Scythians), and
Skodiai (Skoths). The Welsh disliked s at the beginning of a word, and would change
it to ys; they would also change c or k to g, and th to
d; whence the Welsh root would be Ysgd, and Skuth or Skoth
would become ysgod. Once more, the Saxons would cut off the Welsh y, and
change the g back again to c, and the d to t, converting the Ysgod
to Scot.'

It would be no strange thing to find Scythian peoples as
far west as Ireland. After all, the land in Asia Minor known of old as Galatia, was
populated by a migrating colony of Gallic Celts from whom the country got its name. St
Paul wrote his famous epistle to their descendants. . . . But it is at this stage that we
must notice those four particular patriarchs whose names we have already noted in the
Table of European Nations passed down to us by Nennius. There we encountered the names of
Baath, Iobaath, Izrau and Esra. And we see precisely the same names (allowing for
linguistic variation) emerging from the early Irish genealogy, where they are rendered
Baath, Jobbath, Easru and Sru. Now, it is known amongst archaeologists and ethnologists
that the early Britons and many of the ancient peoples of Europe were Celts as were the
early Irish. (The Saxons were not Celts. Hence the absence of these patriarchal names from
the Saxon pedigree.)

And this is known purely from archaeological evidence,
without any reference whatever to these genealogies. Indeed, most modern scholars within
these disciplines would scorn such a reference. So how do we account for the presence of
these names in such diverse genealogies as the early British and the Irish?

There is one discrepancy. Nennius's Table of European
Nations traces the descent of these four patriarchs from Javan, whereas the Irish
genealogy traces them from Magog. Which is right? They both are. The discrepancy is
explained by the fact that there was certainly a mixing of the various patriarchal lines
before Babel. It was only after Babel that the nations were separated. From this moment in
time, the pedigrees branched away from each other in a markedly emphatic way. But
previously the families of mankind were uniting into a single people, which was their
expressed intent of course, and the dispersal of the nations as recorded in the Genesis
account happened for the precise purpose of preventing this process of unification.
Interestingly, the dispersal is depicted in Genesis as having occurred in the fifth
generation after the Flood, and we note in these ancient genealogies that after the fifth
generation the Irish and continental pedigrees diverge in a most pointed way in exact
accordance with the Genesis account. The four patriarchs noted, then, were clearly the
pre-Babel founders of both the British and the Irish Celts, which should give us some idea
of the extreme antiquity of some of the material that is to be found in the early pagan
Irish chronicles and Nennius's Table of European Nations.

The appearance of these names, however, may also go some
way towards explaining another historical mystery, namely the origins of royalty, and the
concept of hereditary royal families. The fact that all the royal families of Europe were,
and indeed still are, interrelated is something that is accepted and well known. But what
was the origin of these families (or rather this original family) who have always insisted
that they were set above the common herd and entitled to rule their fellow man by a sort
of divine right, a claim that cost Charles I of England, and the royal families of France
and Russia, their very lives. Clearly, it was not a concept that was just thought up one
day. Indeed, the aforementioned royal families took it so seriously that they pursued
their right to the death. Rather, it has its roots right back in the very dawn of history,
and was such an anciently established concept that the early Israelites felt somehow
excluded from the rest of humanity because they did not have a royal family of their own.
So, were Baath, Iobaath, Izrau and Ezra the original stock from which the later royal
families of Europe are descended? It would certainly seem to point in that direction. And
what of Iobaath? Did his name become enshrined elsewhere in early European thought as
Father Jove? It is all very intriguing.

The very notion of kingship was itself a decidedly pagan
concept, where in Assyria, for example, the king was deemed to rule as a representative of
the national god, the biblical Asshur, Assyria's founder, and in Egypt where the king was
deemed to actually be a god himself, as later were the Roman Caesars. This is what marked
the Israelites' cry for a king to rule over them as a cry of apostasy. So it would seem
that the concept of royalty and of a privileged and divinely nations royal family whose
rule was to embrace many originated initially amongst the pre-Babel patriarchs such as
those noted above in the Irish and British genealogies, and was nurtured and developed as
a unifying principle within and amongst the dispersed pagan societies. This would, of
course, have been an act of open defiance towards God, and an attempt to repair or perhaps
exploit the damage that was inflicted against a unifying of mankind at Babel.

Of further interest to us, however, is the pagan memory
revealed in the early Irish chronicles, of the Creation and the Flood. These were
remembered by the Irish as relatively recent and definitely historical events. Moreover,
they reckoned the dates of other subsequent and successive historical events by counting
the years since the Creation, . . . , according to this chronology, the first colonisation
of Ireland seems to have taken place ca 1484 BC (the 2520th year after the Creation).

It was the colony led by one Partholan, which landed in
the estuary of the river Kenmare. Partholan himself was to die thirty years later in about
1454 BC or Anno Mundi [the year of the world] 2550. Some three hundred years later, it is
recorded that the colony was wiped out by a plague, 9000 men, women and children dying in
one week alone. The name of the area in which they had settled was later called Tallaght,
denoting a place where plague victims lie buried, and it is interesting to note that it is
still littered with ancient burial mounds today.

Of added interest are certain details that have been
handed down to us by Geoffrey of Monmouth. We are told by him how Partholan's colony
consisted of thirty ships. Interestingly, Nennius makes no mention of the number of ships,
but does tell us that the colony consisted of 1000 souls, which indicates that he and
Geoffrey were working from different sources. However, Geoffrey also tells us that the
colony had recently. been expelled from the Spanish mainland, and moreover that they were
called 'Basclenses,' or Basques. Now, we know that the present-day Basques of northern
Spain are of an entirely mysterious origin, and we also know that they speak a language
that is quite unrelated to any known Indo-European tongue. In which context, it is
interesting to note what Professor Mackie has written concerning the language of the early
Picts who had more than a passing influence on both the early and later history of the
Irish:

'The Picts certainly used a form of P-Celtic (the mother
of Welsh, Cornish and Breton), with traces of Gaulish forms. However, it is clear, from
the few scraps of evidence which survive, that the Picts also used another language,
probably unrelated to any "Indo-European" tongue and therefore so different from
modern European languages as to be incomprehensible to us.'

Presumably, this information would not have been available
to that allegedly incorrigible forger, Geoffrey of Monmouth, but it is instinctive to
compare Mackie's remarks with a comment by Cusack, when she says:

'...those who have maintained the theory of a Gaulish
colonisation of Ireland, have been obliged to make Spain the point of embarkation.'

The next recorded invasion (or settlement) of Ireland took
place, according to the chronicles, in Anno Mundi 2859, or ca 1145 BC in our terms. This
colony was led by Nemedius, or Nemedh, and it is recorded that the people of Nemedh were
credited with having built certain types of fort as well as clearing the land for a
particular method of cultivation. A later outbreak of plague took its toll on the
population, the remainder of whom are recorded as having fought off an invasion of Ireland
by the Formorians, who, according to the Annals of Clonmacnois:

'...were a sept descended from Chain (i.e. Ham), the son
of Noeh, ...(who) ...lived by pyracie and spoile of other nations, and were in those days
very troublesome to the whole world.'

This is of particular interest to us, as we know from the
chronicles of the early Britons that the British mainland was at this time being settled
by Brutus and his people in ca 1104 BC according to the British chronology. Now, although
Brutus is said to have been the first coloniser of Britain, the chronicles do emphatically
state that he had to displace an indigenous race of 'giants.' Whether physical giantism is
here intended cannot be certainly resolved, as the early British word 'gawr' (like the
Hebrew gibbor) could mean simply a great warrior as well as a giant man. But we do know
from the biblical record that giantism was a particular physical trait amongst certain of
Ham's descendants, Goliath of Gath being the best known example, which lends both the
British and Irish accounts a degree of hitherto unsuspected corroboration. The Formorians,
it seems, were the displaced natives of Britain who were trying to seek a foothold on the
Irish mainland only to be repelled by the Nemedians, thereafter having to live, like many
other displaced peoples, by scavenging and piracy.

After the repulsion of the Formorians, the few Nemedian
survivors settled further inland, presumably for safety while they consolidated their
numbers. They are then recorded as subsequently dividing themselves into three 'bands,'
each with their respective leaders. One of these groups migrated to northern Europe, where
they founded a nation known later to the Irish as the Tuatha de Danann. A second group
settled, intriguingly, in the northernmost parts of Britain, apparently the first Pictish
settlement of what is now Scotland. This settlement of Picts from 'Scythia' (so states the
British record--note etymological derivation given above of Scot from Scythian) into
Albany, is recalled in the early British chronicles as having taken place under the
Pictish king Soderic. The British chronology seems to have slipped somewhat at this point,
but the event is real enough and accurately portrayed.

The third group are named as the Firbolgs, who migrated to
Greece and then returned to Ireland which they subsequently divided up into five
provinces. However, in Anno Mundi 3303, or ca 701 BC in our terms, the Firbolgs were
subdued in their turn by the returning colony of Tuatha de Danaun.

The last colonisation of Ireland is then recorded under
Anno Mundi 3500 (i.e. ca 504 BC):

'The fleet of the sons of Milidh came to Ireland at the
end of this year, to take it from the Tuatha de Danann, and they fought the battle of
Sliabh Mis with them on the third day after landing.'

The children of Milidh, known to us as the Milesians, had
landed unobserved in the mouth of the river Slaney in what is today the county of Wexford,
from where they marched to Tara, the central seat of government. The word Milesian is
still used (though with increasing rarity) to denote the Irish people themselves, or
things pertaining to Ireland. And of further interest to our enquiry is the fact that the
Milesians were newly arrived (via the Spanish peninsula) from the city of Miletus, whose
ruins still stand on the Turkish mainland, and which was finally destroyed by the Persian
army in the year 494 BC. Given that the Irish records state ca 504 BC for the landing of
the Milesian colony in Ireland, this is a spontaneous and unexpected chronological
correlation that is close enough to give us serious pause for thought. For there's many an
Egyptologist who wishes that he could get that close with Egyptian chronology!

The lives of the people of Miletus had been made
precarious for decades prior to the fall of their city due to the increasingly threatening
ambitions of the Persian army, and nothing would have been more natural than that a colony
of Milesians should decide to flee in search of a safe haven. They would seek a land that
was sufficiently far away to be safe, was fertile, and which was well known to the
Phoenician mariners of the eastern Mediterranean, as was Ireland. And that the city of
Miletus should also be known to us as an Ionian outpost whose population consisted of,
amongst other races, Scythians and Phoenicians, tells us that we should take the claims of
the early Irish chroniclers very seriously indeed.

Moreover, with regard to the equally often stated
Phoenician element of Irish descent, we should also note that the ancient Greeks once held
that Phoenicia was founded by one Phoenix, whose brother Cadmus had invented the alphabet.
Likewise, the early Irish recalled the time when they lived under a king named . . .
Phenius, who devoted himself especially to the study of languages, and composed an
alphabet and the elements of grammar. So it is clear that at the very least, the early
Irish chroniclers were passing on an account, albeit garbled in places, of authentic
historical events and personages, and of the equally historic descent of their own race
from Phoenician and Scythian stock. And on the subject of that descent, Cusack adds yet
again to our store of knowledge:

'As the Milesians were the last of the ancient colonists .
. . only their genealogies, with a few exceptions, have been preserved. The genealogical
tree begins, therefore, with the brothers Eber and Eremon, the two surviving leaders of
the expedition, whose ancestors are traced back to Magog, the son of Japhet. The great
southern chieftains, such as the MacCarthys and O'Briens, claim descent from Eber; the
northern families of O'Connor, O'Donnell, and O'Neill, claim Eremon as their head. There
are also other families claiming descent from Emer, the son of Ir, brother to Eber and
Eremon; as also from their cousin Lugaidh, the son of Ith. From these four sources the
principle Celtic families of Ireland have sprung...'

As we see in the genealogy, Eber and Eremon were able to
trace their own descent from Gadelas, the father of the Gaels and the Gaelic languages,
but just how seriously did the early Irish take the question of pedigree? Were they
serious enough to take the trouble to keep accurate records over long periods of time?
Once more, Cusack answers the question for us:

'The Books of Genealogies and Pedigrees form a most
important element in Irish pagan history. For social and political reasons, the Irish Celt
preserved his genealogical tree with scrupulous precision. The rights of property and the
governing power were transmitted with patriarchal exactitude on strict claims of
primogeniture, which claims could only be refused under certain conditions defined by law
. . . and in obedience to an ancient law, established long before the introduction of
Christianity, all the provincial records, as well as those of the various chieftains, were
required to be furnished every third year to the convocation at Tara, where they were
compared and corrected.'

As in the case of the Norwegian and Danish Vikings, it is
easy to state, as many modernist articles do on the subject, that these patriarchal
genealogies were hiked. But it is impossible to imagine this happening when we consider
the natural temperament of these various peoples and the gravity with which they viewed
the importance of the records that contained the detailed accounts of their own
patriarchal descent. It is impossible to see how anyone could have deliberately or even
accidentally contrived even a minor alteration to their pedigree without everyone else
becoming immediately aware of the fact, and to imagine an alteration on the scale of that
required to give substance to the modernist scenario of things, would bring us firmly into
the realms of fantasy. Historically, the modernist view on this simply cannot be
justified. Such an attempt at fraud or forgery would have brought the full force of the
law, or rather the more immediate remedy of someone's sword, crashing down upon the
culprit's head. These records may be relied upon, therefore, to be as accurate as any
record can be."

In a discussion on the Coronation Stone, or the Stone of
Scone, John D. Keyser in "The Stone that Roared -- The Incredible Story of Lia-
Fail!", after providing convincing proofs that the Coronation Stone used to
crown British Kings and Queens for centuries, and Scottish and Irish Kings prior to that,
notes:

"Eremon's victory over Eber did little to solidify
his claim to the High- Kingship of Ireland. For hundreds of years afterwards, the battle
was refought time and time again as the advantage went sometimes to the Eremonians and
sometimes to the Eberians. During this time the internecine rivalry caused the descendants
of the sons of Gathelus to leave their original territories and move into other parts of
Ireland.

Fergus Conquers Argyll

Three hundred and thirty years before Christ, a small
colony landed in southwestern Scotland. This colony, however, DID NOT come from Ireland --
but from distant SCYTHIA! Notice!

In 331 Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian realm.
Many nations who had been held in virtual slavery gained their own freedom. One of these
people was the HOUSE OF ISRAEL. Israel was invaded in 721 by Shalmaneser of Assyria. After
a three-year siege her people were taken into captivity. . . . Ezekiel, over a century
later was given a vision in which he saw that the House of Israel would not be released
from their enslavement until 390 years had elapsed from the time of the siege of Samaria
(Ezekiel 4:3-5). It was PRECISELY 390 years from 721, when the siege against Samaria
began, to 331, the date of the final overthrow of Persia and the deliverance out of
captivity of the Hebrews. Some of them immediately commenced a migration to the land
settled long before by their brethren. IN THE YEAR 331-330 THEY JOURNEYED OUT OF SCYTHIA
TO SCOTLAND.... ("Compendium of World History," by Herman L. Hoeh. Vol.II.
Ambassador College, Pasadena. 1963. P.70).

Upon landing in southwestern Scotland they found the
Pictish inhabitants too strong to dislodge. After suffering many reversals, the colony
sought help from the high-king at TARA. Hector Boece records the king's response:

....ambassadors were sent to IRELAND [from Scotland] to
complain of the treason and danger done by the PICTS, and to seek support against them.
FERQUHARD, who was at that time king of the SCOTS IN IRELAND, became angered by the
harassment received by his friends the SCOTS IN SCOTLAND. He therefore sent his son
FERGUS, a wise and valiant prince, to their support.

Notice WHAT ELSE the king sent:

Also, to make them have the appearance of permanent
fortune, FERGUHARD sent with his son the STONE OF DESTINY. FERGUS was warmly received by
the Scots because their very existence was in great danger due to an upcoming battle.
After his arrival, a council was held in ARGYILLE, where FERGUS said the following. . . .
When FERGUS' speech was concluded, the council thought a plurality of leaders was
unprofitable and condescended, with one consent, to ELECT A KING to govern and have
authority over them all during their present crisis. To remove all suspicion of hatred,
and because each tribe wanted a king of their own lineage, THEY CHOSE FERGUS KING because
of his NOBLE [ROYAL] BLOOD and excellent virtues. . . . FERGUS. . . was CROWNED UPON THE
STONE OF DESTINY which he brought with him, by the will of the gods, to stabilize his
realm in Scotland. FERGUS was the first king that reigned over the SCOTS IN THAT REGION. .
. .

The kingdom of the SCOTS rising in this manner in
Scotland, KING FERGUS set about resisting his enemies with great diligence. -- "The
Chronicles of Scotland," compiled in 1531. Translated into Scots by John Ballenden.
Pp. 35-37. Translation (from the Scots) mine.

The place where Fergus was crowned after his arrival in
Argyll is the hill-top FORT OF DUNADD in the Kilmartin valley. This valley is a great
center of Bronze Age monuments and art; and upon the summit of the fortress one can gaze
out to the north and see an ancient row of MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS. On the summit of this
fortress of Dunadd is a FOOTPRINT carved in stone, and next to it a bowl- shaped hollow
and the figure of a WILD BOAR. The hollow contained water used in ceremonial bathings; and
the figure of the boar probably represented kingly courage and fierceness. Behind the
footprint is a place for a STONE. While Fergus was being crowned, HE SAT ON A STONE with
his foot in the footprint, looking out over the megalithic monuments in the distance.
"No stone now exists there upon which a ruler might have been enthroned, but an
unprovable tradition holds THAT ONE WAS USED, and met with a glorious destiny. For this,
the story holds, was THE STONE which was later MOVED TO SCONE and upon which ALL THE KINGS
OF EARLY MEDIEVAL SCOTLAND WERE CROWNED." ("The Pagan Religions of the Ancient
British Isles," by Ronald Hutton. Basil Blackwell, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 1991.
P.173)."

This paper and other similar studies can be found at the
Library of as a link from the also interesting paper Coronation Stone. In this paper,
Michael Sanders writes:

"All the Monarchs of Great Britain since its removal
from Scone in Scotland 700 years before 1996, have been crowned on it apart from Mary
Queen of Scots. It was so esteemed by the British people that when Edward III was forced
to return the crown jewels and this stone to Scotland in 1328, there were riots in the
streets of London and only the regalia were returned. Prior to its removal from Scotland
all Kings there had been crowned upon the stone, it having been moved from Ireland from
Tara via Dunstaffnage, Iona and finally to Scone (Perth). It left the hands of the Irish
in the 5th century where for 1,000 years prior, all Kings of Ireland had been crowned upon
this insignificant looking piece of rock."

When consideration is made of the following:

the stone, Jacob's Pillow, was returned to to Scotland in
1996 by British PM Major

that the next English King/Queen will not be crowned upon
it,

that the stone caused a relationship between Israel and the
island nations' Kings

that there is a strong likelihood for the British Isles to
have Magog ancestory,

that Turkey is an unlikely source of might as the Scythian
discussed by Ezekiel, and

it would seem that earlier predictions about the location
of Magog as being in Turkey or thereabouts, or even Russia, might have to be reconsidered.

The Prince's Coat of Arms can be seen as representing the
times, a sign if you will. It seems natural to concur that Great Britain is a good
candidate for Magog, the Chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal, but there are some other
points that need to be raised and discussed:

the US is strongly Irish, particularly noticeable in the
accent of that nation,

the US and Great Britain are leaders of Nato, most obvious
with the current Yugoslavian bombing

the other nations mentioned by Ezekiel "Persia,
Ethiopia, and Libya with them; . . . Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of
the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee." are either natural
enemies of Israel or are current members of the EU (i.e. Germany),

from an economics point of view, the US is far more the
Chief Prince than Great Britain.

It should be remembered though, that the current
civilisation living in the US is a daughter of Great Britain and therefore may be
mentioned before the sibling US.

It will come down to whether the US or Great Britain will
support Jerusalem as a capital city of Palestine or not; and the answering of that
question might well answer the Magog one. It is also more than likely, given the following
verse, that Magog is not a part of the European mainland:

39:6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that
dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

This verse might be read as including Magog with the other
isles. This can include the Americas, Australia, or the British Isles (for example). If it
is read as (for arguments sake) '. . . fire on Turkey, and among them that dwell
carelessly in the isles . . .' it doesn't make as much sense as when it is replaced by an
island nation.

Please be advised that this domain (Philologos.org) does not
endorse 100 per cent any link contained herein. This forum is for the
dissemination of pertinent information on an end-times biblical theme which
includes many disturbing, unethical, immoral, etc. topics and should be viewed
with a mature, discerning eye.